Oriental works for me. I have never really seen one that is really yellow. In any case, most of my "yellow" friends prefer Oriental.

Quote

I personally call "sodomites" human beings, but I can understand how that would be too progressive bleeding heart liberal (FTFY) for some. Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever?

Well, he would certainly NOT be a fudge packer. I would probably call one as you describe a person.

Good grief, Punch. I can't tell if you are being serious or not. And what is a "bleeding heart liberal"?

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

We Orthodox are often accused (justly in many cases) of not being as literate with Scripture as say, our Protestant friends. Some of what is being posted on this thread confirms that - even in the case of converts who must have abjured memory of the same on conversion.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 Enough with the name calling and judging of others already.

(This goes for the nonsense being put out on the 'Brother Natanael' thread as well.)

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Exactly. We've all seen people post here in florid encouragement that straight people should be able to do X, Y and Z in a marriage. Yet gay people are supposed to be going to hell for doing the same physical deeds.

Why is it okay for one and not another?

And what do we do about gay animals? You know, the ones in the zoo, the ones in the woods, the ones in lots of different species?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Exactly. We've all seen people post here in florid encouragement that straight people should be able to do X, Y and Z in a marriage. Yet gay people are supposed to be going to hell for doing the same physical deeds.

And what do we do about gay animals? You know, the ones in the zoo, the ones in the woods, the ones in lots of different species?

If the goats aren't going to hell, why are the people?

and they keep on telling us that the homosexual agenda doesn't lead to legitimation of bestiality.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.A person who practices sodomySodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

No, as the homosexual only has the oral and/or anal sex option.

I don't like the term sodomite because it lacks such precision. ἀρσενοκοιτία, the biblical term is too specific for active male homosexual behavior, μαλακοία the biblical term is too specific for passive homosexual behavior (thought it has not come to mean masturbation, male perhaps exclusively, as I dont' recall it being used of a woman), neither explicitely including lesbianism (which is also condemned, Romans ). Sodomite and catamite. It is also a term the Church picked up only during the Western Captivity. It also includes, as biro's post is going, bestiality.

There is perhaps a need for a better term, but I haven't the interest to lead that Crusade. I like "arsenocracy" for "same sex marriage." Sodogamy has a ring to it, but I'm not sure it doesn't need tweeking.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.A person who practices sodomySodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.

I do, depending on your definition of Sodomy (which should be narrowed down to homosexual activity): IIRC half for oral sex, a quarter for anal sex.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

No, as the homosexual only has the oral and/or anal sex option.

I don't like the term sodomite because it lacks such precision. ἀρσενοκοιτία, the biblical term is too specific for active male homosexual behavior, μαλακοία the biblical term is too specific for passive homosexual behavior (thought it has not come to mean masturbation, male perhaps exclusively, as I dont' recall it being used of a woman), neither explicitely including lesbianism (which is also condemned, Romans ). Sodomite and catamite. It is also a term the Church picked up only during the Western Captivity. It also includes, as biro's post is going, bestiality.

There is perhaps a need for a better term, but I haven't the interest to lead that Crusade. I like "arsenocracy" for "same sex marriage." Sodogamy has a ring to it, but I'm not sure it doesn't need tweeking.

Well, get to work and brainstorm some more. Because, you know, coming up with names and titles to single out certain kinds of sinners is definitely what Christ called us to.

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.A person who practices sodomySodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.

I do, depending on your definition of Sodomy (which should be narrowed down to homosexual activity): IIRC half for oral sex, a quarter for anal sex.

I do not think sodomy is just a term for homosexual activity. Look at Romans 1:27...And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

When St Paul writes the men left ¨normal sexual relations with women¨ I am thinking penile/vaginal copulation. Not penile/anal copulation. The penile/anal copulation is just as abnormal no matter if the receiver is male or female. The organs are not made to go together...at all. Sodomy is sodomy. No matter if homosexual or heterosexual practices it.

Another snotty comeback instead of accepting that some people don't accept the bull#### you shovel. How tiresome. In all the years you've been here, haven't you had any other ideas?

Quite a projecting echo you have there.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.A person who practices sodomySodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.

I do, depending on your definition of Sodomy (which should be narrowed down to homosexual activity): IIRC half for oral sex, a quarter for anal sex.

I do not think sodomy is just a term for homosexual activity. Look at Romans 1:27...

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

When St Paul writes the men left ¨normal sexual relations with women¨ I am thinking penile/vaginal copulation. Not penile/anal copulation. The penile/anal copulation is just as abnormal no matter if the receiver is male or female. The organs are not made to go together...at all.

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.

I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas. Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.

M.

Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.

Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory? The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.

You mean this matter

Quote

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3). NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.

Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.

What is your point? To waste semen, is not to ejaculate it into a woman at wrong time of the month.

SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.

Quote

Clement of Alexandria"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).

I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says

Quote

The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well

Quote

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

Jerome

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Quote

Semen exists to be ejaculated into a woman.

Then why the opposition of the Vatican to artificial insemenation?

Quote

That is its nature.

Then it wouldn't come out in nocturnal emissions, nor be broken down and absorbed if not ejaculate (into a woman or otherwise).

Quote

Vainly ejaculating would be to masterbate or use a condom,

or a infertile/barren woman. In fact, since 16 million -1 are expended in a conception, even there most are vainly ejaculated, no matter how much they contribute to the success of the one.

Quote

or to have sexual relations without ejaculating in the woman. Of course, I am sure you know this.

I know that there is more to a relationship than treating the man like a sperm donor with an insemenination catheter.

Quote

]The problem is that you are so attached your selfish expressions of sexuality.

Rather presumptious of you to assUme my private life.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

No, as the homosexual only has the oral and/or anal sex option.

I don't like the term sodomite because it lacks such precision. ἀρσενοκοιτία, the biblical term is too specific for active male homosexual behavior, μαλακοία the biblical term is too specific for passive homosexual behavior (thought it has not come to mean masturbation, male perhaps exclusively, as I dont' recall it being used of a woman), neither explicitely including lesbianism (which is also condemned, Romans ). Sodomite and catamite. It is also a term the Church picked up only during the Western Captivity. It also includes, as biro's post is going, bestiality.

There is perhaps a need for a better term, but I haven't the interest to lead that Crusade. I like "arsenocracy" for "same sex marriage." Sodogamy has a ring to it, but I'm not sure it doesn't need tweeking.

Well, get to work and brainstorm some more. Because, you know, coming up with names and titles to single out certain kinds of sinners is definitely what Christ called us to.

He certainly didn't call us to give His stamp of approval.

St. Paul doesn't talk of hell. Gentle Jesus talks about it quite a bit, even on the Mount.

Btw, what part of "I haven't the interest" did you miss?

« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 09:23:55 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Assume'arguendo' that at some point in the future, the world's scientific consensus is solidified that our genetics predetermine our sexuality. Again - assume 'arguendo' - I am NOT advocating anything here - just positing an argument.

If such a hypothesis is ultimately generally accepted by the test of time and the scientific method to be the case - how should we react?

After all, regardless of whether one is a literalist in terms of creation, a creationist or one who is able to view evolution and natural selection as being within the wisdom of God's knowledge, we all believe that humans are created in God's image -necessarily including our DNA. After all - and again I am positing a hypothetical here friends - throughout the history of the Church many beliefs existed about the natural world and the universe which were once fervently held as revealed truth and are no longer viewed as such - for example, heliocentrism, disease as a 'payback' for the sins of the suffering, children born with birth defects on account of their parent's sinful actions, the divine rule of Kings and Princes and so on.... ( I know, some of you still believe this stuff.....) How will we react if we learn that as part of God's plan of creation, he did 'pre-program' the sexual preferences of some of His children in a manner not consistent with the rules and teachings of the Old Testament and certainly not within the New Testament's definition and teaching on marriage as being between a man a woman?

I am not questioning the Church's moral teaching here, but rather the attitudes that many exhude regarding the nature of homosexual human beings. No one questions that a man born with a high libido is bound by the same moral constraints as man with a lower sex drive - I suspect that DNA may determine that as well and I understand that those born with a predisposition to sexual attraction to members of the same sex are bound by those same constraints. It is the constant obsession with this topic that many have and the hostility and snarkiness which is displayed that is troubling.

Christ rebuked those who questioned his association with the much married Samaritan woman. Likewise he rebuked those who questioned the use of precious oil on His feet by the hand of woman, Mary Magdalene. He reserved his greatest anger for those who were hypocrites and those who exhalted themselves at the expense of others. It seems to me that calming down and taking a deep breath is in order.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 10:16:02 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Oriental works for me. I have never really seen one that is really yellow. In any case, most of my "yellow" friends prefer Oriental.

Quote

I personally call "sodomites" human beings, but I can understand how that would be too progressive bleeding heart liberal (FTFY) for some. Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever?

Well, he would certainly NOT be a fudge packer. I would probably call one as you describe a person.

Good grief, Punch. I can't tell if you are being serious or not. And what is a "bleeding heart liberal"?

Only half. A bleeding heart liberal is what is not called a progressive. Just like a conservative is now hateful. You know, definition of the day.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

The caustic comments, whether in jest or serious, hurt a lot of people. People feel justified in their comments because somehow some sinners are less worthy of compassion and understanding. It seems to me that some people think that compassion and understanding are somehow passions to be overcome. Some people act as if compassion and understanding means that one is liberal and is willing to excuse/justify sinful behavior. I just don't understand that. Our Lord in the midst of His brutal, but saving, Passion sought to pardon the transgressions of those who murdered Him. He was nothing but compassionate.

There are many in the Church who struggle with homosexuality. They often feel alone. They struggle to remain celibate, something that verges on an impossibility in this day and age, but is even more difficult when all they hear is caustic, mean-spirited comments from people in the Church, those very people who are essential in ensuring their salvation. The celibate person cannot endure this yoke without his or her brothers and sisters in the Faith and most do not endure. They feel isolated, completely alone. Some here will say that they aren't speaking about celibate homosexuals, but only sexually active ones, but for those who struggle, that doesn't mean much. The memories of teasing and taunting they endured from their peers and adults growing up comes whirling back and hits like a fist. For many, it is a reminder of how different they are and alone and a reminder to not hold out hope for a community that will support them.

Many of your brothers and sisters who struggle with this issue have little support from anyone. The gay community pities them and tries to "enlighten" them and/or holds them in absolute contempt and the Christian community doesn't seem to know how/is uncomfortable with/doesn't want to support those who struggle and/or holds them in absolute contempt.

It is moments like these when the world seems most dark. When those evil thoughts that the devil tries to put into the minds of those who struggle, those thoughts they constantly battle against, find their voice in the servants of Christ.

I won't be returning to this thread and not even sure if I can return to this forum. I'm not sure I could bear any of the responses I might get.

Lord, have mercy on your servants.

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

Comm'on Ionnis, just ignore idiots like the one's that come with stupid puns ("sodogamy") and the idiots that think the idiotic pun is worth sharing .

And some idiots want to contribute 2 cents of whining.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 12:05:10 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex.

I hope they are happy together. Like I said, its 50%/25%, so that leaves at least 25% (I could assume that the 50% for oral would include 25% for anal, but I don't assUme) for you to know quite a few heterosexual married (redundant) couples, although their disgust should be of interest only to each other.

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough. We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

Care to back up your nonsense with a quote from someone in Touchstone? Or are you just prattling on out of ignorance as usual.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough. We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

Since I shouldn't, and don't, sleep with my neighbor's wife, I don't care what they do.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough. We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

Since I shouldn't, and don't, sleep with my neighbor's wife, I don't care what they do.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

Sheesh! that sounds like rape, not marital love.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough. We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

Since I shouldn't, and don't, sleep with my neighbor's wife, I don't care what they do.

Why be explicit about it if you don't care what they do?

Maria seems to find it important.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

Sheesh! that sounds like rape, not marital love.

Now, now...they find it the only behavior, when it becomes necessary, for decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God. Anything else is wallowing in filth of pigs and sodomites.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough. We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

Since I shouldn't, and don't, sleep with my neighbor's wife, I don't care what they do.

Why be explicit about it if you don't care what they do?

Maria seems to find it important.

Let her have her judgment by calling us pigs and sodomites. We don't sit in judgment of Maria.

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes. Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

Sheesh! that sounds like rape, not marital love.

Where do babies come from? God? The stork brings them? A pipette with the man's seed is injected into the woman's egg in a petri dish?

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.

And who are you to call sinners to repentance? What about the woman, should she repent for having her anus used by the man?

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position. It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either), therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches. Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?